1. How do you understand the term constitution and its role in a political community?

2. Match the following English words and expressions with their Ukrainian equivalents:

1. inalienable right

2. supranational institutions

3. a church congregation

4. retroactive law

5. prerequisite

6. to label

7. patterns of governance

8. to ensure respective powers

9. to endow

10. positive law

11. divine law

1. позитивне, чинне право

2. духовне, божественне право

3. невід'ємне право

4. наділяти

5. передумова

6. відносити до категорії,іменувати

7. наднаціональні інститути

8. моделі управління

9. конгрегація, релігійна група

10. наділяти відповідними повноваженнями

11. закон, що має зворотню силу

Reading tasks_______________________________________________________

Read the text to understand what information is of primary importance or new for you.

Constitutional law

Constitutional law is the body of rules, doctrines, and practices that govern the operation of political communities. In modern times by far the most important political community has been the national state. Modern constitutional law is the offspring of nationalism as well as of the idea that the state must protect certain fundamental rights of the individual. As national states have multiplied in number, so have constitutions and with them the body of constitutional law. But constitutional law originates today sometimes from non-national sources too, while the protection of individual rights has become the concern also of supranational institutions.

In the broadest sense a constitution is a body of rules governing the affairs of an organized group. A parliament, a church congregation, a social club, or a trade union may operate under the terms of a formal written document labelled constitution. This does not mean that all of the rules of the organization are in the constitution, for usually there are many other rules such as bylaws and customs. Invariably, by definition, the rules spelled out in the constitution are considered to be basic, in the sense that, until they are modified according to an appropriate pro­cedure, all other rules must conform with them. Thus the presiding officer of a club is obliged to rule that a proposal is out of order if it is contrary to a provision of its constitution. Implicit in the concept of a constitution is that of a higher law that takes precedence.

Every political community, and thus every national state, has a constitution, at least in the sense that it operates its important institutions according to some fundamental body of rules. In this sense of the term the only conceivable alternative to a constitution is a condition of anarchy. Constitutions may be written or unwritten; they may be complex or simple; they may provide for vastly different patterns of governance. Even if the only rule that matters is the whim of an absolute dictator, that may be said to be the constitution.

The constitution of a political community is therefore composed, in the first place, of the principles determining the agencies to which the task of governing the community is entrusted and their respective powers. In absolute monarchies, such as the Oriental kingdoms and the Roman Empire in antiquity and the French monarchy between the 16th and 18th centuries, all sovereign powers were concentrated in one person, the king or emperor, who exercised them directly or through subordinate agencies that had to act according to his instructions. In ancient republics, such as Athens and Rome, the constitution provided, as do the constitutions of most modern states, for a distribution of powers among distinct agencies. But whether it concentrates or distributes these powers, a constitution always contains at least the rules that define the structures and operations of the government that runs the community.

The constitution of a political community may contain more, however, than the definition of the authorities endowed with powers to command. It may also include principles that delimit those powers in order to secure against them fundamental rights of persons or groups. The idea that political sovereignty is not unlimited stems from an old tradition in Western philosophy. Well before the advent of Christianity, Greek philosophers thought that positive law — i.e., the law actually enforced in a community in order to be just must reflect the principles of a superior, ideal law: natural law. Similar conceptions were propagated in Rome by Cicero and by the Stoics. Later the Church Fathers and the Scholastics held that positive law was binding only if it did not conflict with the precepts of divine law. These considerations did not remain abstract speculations of philosophers and theologians; to a measure, they found reception in fundamental rules of positive legal systems. In Europe, for example, the authority of political rulers throughout the Middle Ages did not extend to religious matters, which were strictly reserved to the jurisdiction of the church. The powers of political rulers, moreover, were limited by the rights of at least some classes of subjects. Quarrels and fights over the extent of such rights were not infrequent; and they were sometimes settled through solemn, legal “pacts” among the contenders, the prominent example being Magna Carta (1215). In the modern age, even the powers of an absolute monarch such as the king of France were not truly absolute: acting alone, he could not alter the fundamental laws of the kingdom or disestablish the Roman Catholic Church.

Against this background of already existing legal limitations on the powers of governments, a decisive turn in the history of Western constitutional law occurred when a theory of natural law based on the “inalienable rights” of the individual was developed. John Locke (1632-1704) was the first outstanding champion of the theory. He was followed by others, and in the 18th century the doctrine of the rights of the individual became the banner of the Enlightenment. The theory assumed that there are certain rights belonging to every single human being (religious freedom, freedom of speech, freedom to acquire and possess property, freedom not to be punished on the basis of retroactive laws and of unfair criminal procedures, and so on), which governments cannot “take away” because they were not “created” by governments. The theory further assumed that governments must be organized in such a way as to afford an effective protection of the rights of the individual. For that purpose it was thought that, as a minimal prerequisite, governmental functions must be divided into legislative, executive, and judicial; that executive action must comply with the rules laid down by the legislature; and that remedies, administered by an independent judiciary, must be available against illegal executive action.

The theory of the rights of the individual was a potent factor in reshaping the constitutions of Western states in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. The first step was made by England at the time of the Glorious Revolution (1688). All of these principles concerning the distinction of governmental functions and their appropriate relations were incorporated in constitutional law. England also soon changed some of its laws so as to give more adequate legal force to the newly discovered individual freedoms. It was in the United States, however, that the theory scored its most complete success. Once the English colonies became independent states (1776), they faced the problem of giving themselves a fresh political organization. They seized the opportunity to spell out in special legal documents, which could be amended only through a special procedure, all the main principles providing for the distribution of governmental functions among distinct state agencies as required by the theory, as well as the main principles concerning the rights of the individual the theory wanted to be respected by all state powers. The federal Constitution (1788) and its Bill of Rights (Amendments 1-X, 1791) did the same, shortly thereafter, at the national level. By giving through this device a formal, higher status to rules defining the essential organization of government, as well as the essential limitations of its legislative and executive powers, U.S. constitutionalism put in full evidence the character that belongs, in essence, to all constitutional law: the fact of its being “basic” with respect to all other laws of the legal system. This also made it possible to set up institutional controls over the conformity even of legislation with the group of rules considered, with­in the system, to be of supreme importance.

The American idea of stating in an orderly, comprehensive document the essentials of the rules that must guide the operations of government became popular very quickly. Since the end of the 18th century scores of states, in Europe and elsewhere, have followed the United States’ example. Today, almost all states have constitutional documents describing the fundamental organs of the state, the ways they should operate, and, usually, the rights they must respect and even sometimes the goals they ought to pursue. Notwithstanding great differences among themselves, the constitutional charters of contemporary states are all similar at least in one respect: they are meant to express the core of the constitutional law governing their respective countries.

UNDERSTANDING MAIN POINTS___________________________________